Theft related crimes cover an extremely broad spectrum of crimes. Theft related crimes include:
- Car Jacking;
- Home Invasion Robbery;
- Grand Theft;
- Grand Theft Auto;
- Residential Burglary;
- Commercial Burglary;
- Identity Theft; and
- Petty Theft
Any conviction for any theft related charge, no matter how small, can have a devastating impact on a person’s employment status, ability to get into college, obtain licensing in areas of law, medicine or other professions. A conviction for a theft related crime is considered a “crime of moral turpitude” and can result in being terminated from your job, being denied a professional license or failing to be accepted in college or other continuing education classes.
Because you have been charged with a theft related charge does not mean you will ever be convicted of the charged offense. Sean Hennessey has represented hundreds of people charged with theft related offenses including many professionals such as Medical Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Nurses and many others. Sean Hennessey has gotten many theft related charges dismissed or arranged for the charges to be dismissed without a conviction on a person’s record.
There can be many different ways to handle theft related charges resulting in a person not being convicted of the charged offense. If you have been charged with any type of theft related charge you need to contact The Law Office of Sean Hennessey immediately. Sean Hennessey is well known by virtually all prosecuting agencies throughout Southern California and having Sean represent you on a theft related charge could make the difference between suffering a conviction versus some alternative to a conviction.
Below are some notable resolutions of theft related charges Sean Hennessey has achieved for his clients:
- THIRD STRIKE CASE: Client charged with Grand Theft Auto and possession of a car without the owner’s permission. The client had 4 armed robbery priors.FACTS: Witness sees car stolen from a parking lot and calls 911. 20 minutes later the Defendant is captured in the stolen car 15 miles from the location of the theft. The Defendant is alone in the car. The Defendant says he got the car from a friend and was on his way to see his girlfriend. The Defendant was extremely drunk when he was arrested. All pre-trial offers were 25 years to life in prison.
TRIAL: At trial the Defendant testified he was in a bar drinking when a friend he knew from prison came in and asked if he knew where to get heroin. The Defendant testified he knew where to get heroin but could not bring his friend to his dealer’s house. The friend said he had a car out back and gave the Defendant the keys. The bar was less than a block from where the car was stolen.
RESULT: The jury found Defendant Not Guilty of all charges after deliberating for 8 hours.
- THIRD STRIKE CASE: Client was charged with stealing food from 7-11. The client had a serious residential burglary prior where he attempted to rape a woman but was interrupted by the woman’s father. Because the client had a theft prior the new minor theft charge was filed and pursued as a Third Strike Felony.FACTS: Store manager sees Defendant put several bags of beef jerky in his coat and walk out without paying. The Defendant is found behind the 7-11 with his hand in a bag of beef jerky. The client is extremely drunk. When asked where he got the beef jerky he said a friend gave it to him.
TRIAL: At trial Sean showed the description given of the person who stole the beef jerky did not match his description. Sean also argued the police did a horrible job investigating by failing to seize the videotape which would have shown the person enter and exit the 7-11. By time Sean got the case the 7-11 videos had already been taped over. Sean also proved someone else could have taken the beef jerky and gave it to his client before police arrived.
RESULT: Jury found Sean’s client Not Guilty of all charges after deliberating for 2 hours.
- GRAND THEFT AUTO/POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTYFACTS: An off duty Los Angeles Police Officer observes client and another trying to break into a car. The off duty police officer says he watched as the client looked around while the co-defendant tried to “hot wire” the car. Both client and other involved man are arrested after it is determined the car was stolen several days earlier. Before trial the co-defendant pled guilty to the charges. Sean’s client turned down the pre-trial offer and went to a jury trial.
DEFENSE: Sean’s client said he had asked the co-defendant for a ride and thought the car belonged to the co-defendant. Sean argued the car was such a “junker” Sean’s client would not have a reason to believe the co-defendant would steal a car in such poor shape.
RESULT: The Jury found Sean’s client Not Guilty of all charges after deliberating only 20 minutes.
- ARMED CAR JACKINGFACTS: Sean’s client was alleged to have robbed a traveling jewelry salesman at gunpoint. Sean’s client allegedly approached a jewelry salesman while he was parked in a parking lot. Sean’s client allegedly ordered the man out of the car at gunpoint and drove off in the man’s car which contained over $100,000 in jewelry. Sean’s client was picked out of a photographic by the victim.
DEFENSE: Sean alleged the photographic line-up was overly suggestive because Sean’s client was the only “light skinned” black man in the six (6) person photographic line-up. Further, Sean argued the police did a horrible investigation by failing to follow up on a potential suspect named by the victim.
RESULT: Sean’s client was found Not Guilty of all charges after the Jury deliberated for 5 hours.
- RESIDENTIAL BURGLARYFACTS: Six hours after being released from prison, Sean’s client went over to his ex-wife’s house, kicked down the door and tried to attack his wife. Sean’s client was charged with Residential Burglary under the theory he broke into his ex-wife’s house in order to assault her.
DEFENSE: Sean alleged his client never broke into his ex-wife’s house to attack her but rather to talk to her. Sean’s client argued his client was extremely intoxicated and used extremely poor judgment in the manner he tried to speak with his ex-wife.
RESULT: Sean’s client was found Not Guilty of Residential Burglary after the Jury deliberated for 4 hours.
- COMMERCIAL BURGLARY AND PETTY THEFT WITH PRIORSFACTS: Witness calls 911 saying he saw “a big Mexican guy” trying to saw into a change machine at a laundry mat. Five (5) eyewitnesses identify client as the person they saw trying to break into the change machine. Client located by helicopter 3-4 minutes after the 911 call was placed. When client was arrested he had pieces of a saw blade in his pocket. The client was white not Mexican.
DEFENSE: The client did not match the description given by the caller to the 911 operator and the eyewitness descriptions did not match the clothing or appearance of the client.
RESULT: Jury hung 8-4 in favor of Not Guilty and the case was dismissed before a re-trial was set to begin.
- PETTY THEFTFACTS: College girl caught on video stealing cosmetics from a cosmetics company in South Coast Plaza. Client confessed to the theft on tape.
RESULT: The client was Valedictorian of her high school class, was set to graduate UCLA with high honors and had already been accepted to Medical School. The DA agreed to a “six-month continuance” during which time the client was to perform 60 hours of community service. At the end of the six-month period the case was dismissed.
- P ETTY THEFT WITH PRIORSFACTS: Client was arrested for taking merchandise from Baby’s R Us. Client has 2 prior petty theft convictions.
DEFENSE: Both the detention of the client and the statement taken from the client were done illegally.
RESULT: Case dismissed by the DA.